DOCSLIB.ORG

Whitepaper Bug Bounty Program of Last Resort

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Whitepaper Bug Bounty Program of Last Resort BUG BOUNTY PROGRAM OF LAST RESORT FEB 2021 THE CASE FOR A BUG BOUNTY PROGRAM OF LAST RESORT REVISITING THE ECONOMIC VALIDATION FOR BUG BOUNTY PROGRAMS Chair of Entrepreneurial Risks D-MTEC, ETH Zurich Stefan Frei, Oliver Rochford https://techzoom.net/bug-bounty-reloaded 1 BUG BOUNTY PROGRAM OF LAST RESORT FEB 2021 Abstract This paper makes the case for a centralized Bug Bounty Program of Last Resort. A larger number of vendors either lack the maturity, funding or incentive to invest more in secure software development, meaning that a) we do not really know the true number of vulnerabilities out there - resulting in a shadow population of vulnerabilities b) large parts of our digital economy and infrastructure are at risk from this shadow population of vulnerabilities c) the digital transformation is jumping without a parachute, with few universal mechanisms in place to ensure minimum standards and safe innovation. Minimal software quality standards are far and few A bug bounty program between and have also been notoriously difficult to rewards researcher enforce and quantify. Bug bounties have instead proven reporting vulnerabilities to themselves an additional effective mechanism to improve the vendor of the affected vulnerability discovery, while also reducing the availability software in the form of of zero-day vulnerabilities and exploits to malicious cyber financial compensation actors. But they are not trivial to operate and have not yet been adopted widely or consistently. Startup vendors and open-source projects especially are challenged to fund and manage such programs, yet their technologies underpin the digital transformation. Our analysis proposes and validates a model for a broader scope bug bounty program (Bug Bounty of Last Resort) by assessing and comparing the cost of having a massive vulnerability purchase program following a coordinated disclosure process - and comparing this cost to cybercrime losses. 2 BUG BOUNTY PROGRAM OF LAST RESORT FEB 2021 Key Findings Financing a bug bounty program of last resort that offers competitive and lucrative compensation for vulnerability discovery and innovative defensive tools is affordable. The benefits outweigh the costs, especially when calculated as a percentage of GDP (EU, US) compared to the cost of cyber security and damages resulting from cybercrime • A shadow population of zero-day vulnerabilities exists due to a lack of consistent investment in vulnerability discovery. • Costs for vulnerability exposure have been fully externalized to end users, who are unable to quantify or manage the risk from the shadow population of vulnerabilities. • Bug Bounty Programs have been adopted successfully to improve vulnerability discovery by select vendors - but have not been adopted industry-wide due to lack of incentives, regulatory guidance, or affordability. • Less than 50 vendors account for more than 50% of annually disclosed vulnerabilities • Many software suppliers who would benefit most, critical open-source projects and smaller vendors, cannot fund them. • Our proposal, an industry-wide Bug Bounty Program of Last Resort (BBPLR) expanding coverage to all critical technologies and vendors will reduce the risk posed by shadow vulnerabilities and reduce the pool of vulnerabilities available for cyber criminals to exploit. • Economically, a BBPLR is easily affordable while measurably improving the rate of vulnerability discovery to ultimately reduce the shadow vulnerability population and systemic risk. • The cost of 1,732 Billion to purchase 81% of all medium to critical severity vulnerabilities in 2020 for 50k/150k, and 250k USD would be much less than 0.1% of the GDP of the OECD, the EU, or the US. • Purchasing vulnerabilities at scale makes economic sense if it reduces the overall losses to cybercrime by at least 0.5% (zero-point-five percent per USD 1,000 billion) 3 BUG BOUNTY PROGRAM OF LAST RESORT FEB 2021 Table of Contents 1. There is no such thing as secure software 5 1.1. Current and emerging approaches to handling & reducing vulnerabilities 6 1.2. Coordinated disclosure 7 1.3. Bug bounty programs 8 2. Limitations of and gaps in current approaches 9 2.1. Inconsistent coverage due to viability and affordability 9 2.2. Competition by the grey market in zero-days and vulnerabilities 9 3. Bug Bounty Program of Last Resort 10 3.1. Economics of bug bounty cost 11 3.2. Model A - Purchasing all vulnerabilities 12 3.3. Model B - Vendor purchases its vulnerabilities 13 3.4. Aspired benefits of a Bug Bounty Program of Last Resort 16 3.5. Additional benefit: Depleting vulnerability stockpiles 16 4. Conclusions 17 4.1. The authors 18 4.2. Acknowledgments 18 5. Future areas of research 19 6. Further reading 19 7. Bibliography 20 8. Appendix 23 8.1. Data source: Vulnerabilities 23 8.2. Date source: Financial Data 23 8.3. Data source: Bug bounty programs 23 8.4. Software supply chain 24 8.5. Glossar / Definitions / Concepts 25 8.6. Top-20 Vendors 2017 - 2018 26 8.7. Top-20 Vendors 2019 - 2020 27 4 BUG BOUNTY PROGRAM OF LAST RESORT FEB 2021 1. There is no such thing as secure software Vulnerability disclosures have exceeded escape velocity. Vulnerabilities in software, usually defined as a weakness or flaw in an application or IT infrastructure that a malicious user can abuse to compromise a system, are a key component of most data breaches. Yet historically users and implementers, not vendors, have been responsible and liable for mitigating the risk from vulnerabilities. The volume and velocity of new vulnerability disclosures that organizations An estimated 18,000 vulnerabilities must address have been inexorably affecting 2,900 vendors were published in increasing for more than two decades. 2020. The top 10 vendors typically Information security management account for 35% and the top 50 vendors frameworks and regulations do commonly for 57% of all published vulnerabilities. include requirements to manage vulnerabilities, and organizations have invested more and more into cyber hygiene. But the sheer amount and diversity of software used by a typical enterprise means that we are chasing a moving target. Operationalizing vulnerability management has become a scalability and prioritization challenge. More importantly, it is predicated on vulnerabilities being disclosed and known, which requires active discovery and research. Only a few vendors account for most of the volume as shown in Table 1 and Figure 1 below. Typically, the top 10 vendors account for 35% and the top 50 vendors for 57% of all published vulnerabilities per year.1 ALL VENDORS TOP-N VENDORS VOLUME SCOPE VOLUME SHARE GROWTH 2010 2020 Vendors 2010 2020 in 2020 10 yrs p.a. Top-10 1'903 6'418 35% x 3.37 x 1.13 4'639 18'335 Top-50 2'587 10'441 57% x 4.04 x 1.15 Top-100 2'877 11'840 65% x 4.12 x 1.15 Top-500 3'816 14'864 81% x 3.9 x 1.15 Table 1 - Year-over-year growth of vulnerability disclosures of 13% - 15% in the past decade for all groups of vendors (top-10 to top-500). In 2020 the top 10 (of 2,900) vendors accounted for 35% of all vulnerabilities published. Source NVD [1] Overall, the volume of new vulnerabilities has consistently grown by double digit percentages year on year. While some vulnerabilities arise out of bad development practices and may be eliminated by applying best practices such as secure Software Development Lifecycle (SDLC) management, others are a result of software complexity. There is also a misalignment in economic incentives for software suppliers to invest in security, also contributing to the continuous flood of new vulnerabilities. 1 The term vendor is used to refer to the producer of software, regardless of whether that software is sold commercially 5 BUG BOUNTY PROGRAM OF LAST RESORT FEB 2021 VULNERABILITIES OF TOP-N VENDORS Top-10 Top-50 Top-100 Top-500 All 20'000 18'000 18'335 16'000 ) 14'551 E 14'000 V C ( s 12'000 e 11'575 i t i l 10'203 i 10'000 b a r e 8'000 n l u 6'000 6'350 V 4'000 2'000 0 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Figure 1 - Number of vulnerabilities (CVE entries) disclosed per year for the top 10 to top 500, and all vendors. In 2017, the number of entries jumped significantly. Much of this 2017 expansion is due to the increased capability of the program that manages the CVE process feeding the National Vulnerability Database (NVD). [2] With few incentives to invest in secure software design, and even fewer penalties or VULNERABILITY liability costs [3] for releasing insecure A weakness of software, hardware or software, it has become common to prioritize online service that can be exploited. A commercial agility rather than security. The vulnerability itself does no harm, but if risk has thus been fully externalized. exploited it typically results in unwanted consequences. Without product liability for software, the cost of mitigating vulnerabilities is externalized as risk and cost to end users and businesses. Security updates must be viewed as product recalls for defective software at the user’s expense, something that is unacceptable in other industries like automotive or aviation. At the same time, abuse of known (and yet-unknown) vulnerabilities in software by cyber criminals and nation state actors has risen, with the global cost of cybercrime in the order of billions of USD per year [4].
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Towards Principled Bug Bounties and Exploit-Resistant Smart Contracts
    Enter the Hydra: Towards Principled Bug Bounties and Exploit-Resistant Smart Contracts Lorenz Breidenbach, Cornell Tech, IC3, ETH Zurich; Philip Daian, Cornell Tech, IC3; Florian Tramer, Stanford; Ari Juels, Cornell Tech, IC3, Jacobs Institute https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity18/presentation/breindenbach This paper is included in the Proceedings of the 27th USENIX Security Symposium. August 15–17, 2018 • Baltimore, MD, USA 978-1-939133-04-5 Open access to the Proceedings of the 27th USENIX Security Symposium is sponsored by USENIX. Enter the Hydra: Towards Principled Bug Bounties and Exploit-Resistant Smart Contracts∗ Lorenz Breidenbach Philip Daian Florian Tramer` Ari Juels [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Cornell Tech, IC3,† Cornell Tech, IC3† Stanford Cornell Tech, IC3,† ETH Zurich¨ Jacobs Institute Abstract ble security problem. Vulnerability reward programs— bug bounties Bug bounties are a popular tool to help prevent soft- a.k.a. —have become instrumental in orga- ware exploits. Yet, they lack rigorous principles for set- nizations’ security assurance strategies. These programs ting bounty amounts and require high payments to attract offer rewards as incentives for hackers to disclose soft- economically rational hackers. Rather than claim boun- ware bugs. Unfortunately, hackers often prefer to exploit ties for serious bugs, hackers often sell or exploit them. critical vulnerabilities or sell them in gray markets. We present the Hydra Framework, the first general, The chief reason for this choice is that the bugs eli- principled approach to modeling and administering bug gible for large bounties are generally weaponizable vul- bounties that incentivize bug disclosure.
    [Show full text]
  • Exploring Coordinated Disclosure SHEDDING LIGHT on PERCEPTIONS and EXPERIENCES in HOW SOFTWARE VULNERABILITIES ARE REPORTED
    Exploring Coordinated Disclosure SHEDDING LIGHT ON PERCEPTIONS AND EXPERIENCES IN HOW SOFTWARE VULNERABILITIES ARE REPORTED COMMISSIONED BY SEPTEMBER 2019 ©COPYRIGHT 2019 451 RESEARCH. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. About this paper A Black & White paper is a study based on primary research survey data that assesses the market dynamics of a key enterprise technology segment through the lens of the “on the ground” experience and opinions of real practitioners — what they are doing, and why they are doing it. ABOUT THE AUTHOR DAN KENNEDY RESEARCH DIRECTOR, VOICE OF THE ENTERPRISE: INFORMATION SECURITY Daniel Kennedy is the Research Director for Information Security for 451 Research’s Voice of the Enterprise (VoTE) quantitative research product, where he is responsible for managing all phases of the research process. He is an experienced information security professional who has written for both Forbes online and Ziff Davis, has provided commentary to numerous news outlets including The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, and his personal blog Praetorian Prefect was recognized as one of the top five technical blogs in information security by the RSA 2010 Conference. COMMISSIONED BY VERACODE 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary 4 Key Findings 4 Methodology 5 Brief History of Vulnerability Disclosure 5 Today’s Perceptions of Disclosure 8 Figure 1: Vulnerability disclosure preferences � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 8 Vulnerability Disclosure as a Public Good 8 Solicited Versus Unsolicited Testing 9 Disclosure
    [Show full text]
  • Penetration Testing of Web Applications in a Bug Bounty Program
    Penetration Testing of Web Applications in a Bug Bounty Program Pascal Schulz Faculty of Health, Science and Technology Computer Science 15hp Leonardo Martucci Donald F. Ross 140604 Penetration Testing of Web Applications in a Bug Bounty Program PASCAL SCHULZ Department of Mathematics and Computer Science Abstract Web applications provide the basis for the use of the "World-Wide-Web", as people know it nowadays. These software solutions are programmed by a numerous amount of devel- opers all over the world. For all this software, it is not possible to guarantee a 100 percent security. Therefore, it is desirable that every application should be evaluated using penetra- tion tests. A new form of security testing platforms is provided by bug bounty programs, which encourage the community to help searching for security breaches. This work intro- duces the currently leading portal for bug bounties, called Bugcrowd Inc. In addition, web applications, which were part of the program, were tested in order to evaluate their security level. A comparison is made with statistics provided by leading penetration testing compa- nies, showing the average web application security level. The submission process, to send information about vulnerabilities, has been evaluated. The average time it takes, to receive an answer regarding a submission has been reviewed. In the end, the findings are retested, to evaluate, if the bug bounty program is a useful opportunity to increase security and if website operators take submissions serious by patching the software flaws. Keywords: Penetration Testing, Bug-Bounty Program, Web Application Analysis. iii This thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science.
    [Show full text]
  • Byos Bug Bounty Program: Las Vegas 2019
    Byos Bug Bounty Program: Las Vegas 2019 White Paper Document version: 1.0 August 21st, 2019 Byos Bug Bounty Program - Las Vegas 2019 White Paper - © 2019 Mkit North America Inc. All rights reserved - ​byos.io Page 1 of 14 1.0 - Introduction 3 2.0 - Findings 5 2.1 - Critical Vulnerabilities 5 2.1.1 - Timing ARP Spoof attack 5 2.2 - High Vulnerabilities 6 2.2.1 - SQL Injection 6 2.2.2 - Authentication bypass (JWT) 7 2.2.3 - Authentication Bypass (Remember Me) 8 2.3 - Medium Vulnerabilities 9 2.3.1 - Persistent XSS 9 2.4 - Low Vulnerabilities 10 2.4.1 - Unicode in SSID 10 2.4.2 - CSRF 11 2.4.3 - Outdated libraries 12 3.0 - Conclusion 12 4.0 - Footnotes 14 Byos Bug Bounty Program - Las Vegas 2019 White Paper - © 2019 Mkit North America Inc. All rights reserved - ​byos.io Page 2 of 14 1.0 - Introduction 1.1 - Summary Over the course of 3 days, more than 20 security researchers from North America, South America, and Europe participated in our company’s first bug bounty event. The event was by invitation only. 1.2 - Objective The overall objective of the bug bounty program is to validate the security claims of the Byos Portable Secure Gateway and to discover any existing vulnerabilities in the product and its features. Additional benefits include: ● Practising the company’s internal vulnerability handling process ● Increasing our security team’s awareness of how attackers approach the security mechanisms of the product ● Learning and validating security development best practices by having active feedback from researchers ● Gathering external expert opinions on the product’s feature-set, benefits and use-cases 1.3 - Time and Location The Bug Bounty took place during August 8-9-10, 2019, in Las Vegas, NV (USA).
    [Show full text]
  • Software Bug Bounties and Legal Risks to Security Researchers Robin Hamper
    Software bug bounties and legal risks to security researchers Robin Hamper (Student #: 3191917) A thesis in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Law by Research Page 2 of 178 Rob Hamper. Faculty of Law. Masters by Research Thesis. COPYRIGHT STATEMENT ‘I hereby grant the University of New South Wales or its agents a non-exclusive licence to archive and to make available (including to members of the public) my thesis or dissertation in whole or part in the University libraries in all forms of media, now or here after known. I acknowledge that I retain all intellectual property rights which subsist in my thesis or dissertation, such as copyright and patent rights, subject to applicable law. I also retain the right to use all or part of my thesis or dissertation in future works (such as articles or books).’ ‘For any substantial portions of copyright material used in this thesis, written permission for use has been obtained, or the copyright material is removed from the final public version of the thesis.’ Signed ……………………………………………........................... Date …………………………………………….............................. AUTHENTICITY STATEMENT ‘I certify that the Library deposit digital copy is a direct equivalent of the final officially approved version of my thesis.’ Signed ……………………………………………........................... Date …………………………………………….............................. Thesis/Dissertation Sheet Surname/Family Name : Hamper Given Name/s : Robin Abbreviation for degree as give in the University calendar : Masters of Laws by Research Faculty : Law School : Thesis Title : Software bug bounties and the legal risks to security researchers Abstract 350 words maximum: (PLEASE TYPE) This thesis examines some of the contractual legal risks to which security researchers are exposed in disclosing software vulnerabilities, under coordinated disclosure programs (“bug bounty programs”), to vendors and other bug bounty program operators.
    [Show full text]
  • Web Cache Entanglement: Novel Pathways to Poisoning
    Web Cache Entanglement: Novel Pathways to Poisoning James Kettle - [email protected] - @albinowax Caches are woven into websites throughout the net, discreetly juggling data between users, and yet they are rarely scrutinized in any depth. In this paper, I'll show you how to remotely probe through the inner workings of caches to find subtle inconsistencies, and combine these with gadgets to build majestic exploit chains. These flaws pervade all layers of caching - from sprawling CDNs, through caching web servers and frameworks, all the way down to fragment-level internal template caches. Building on my prior cache poisoning research, I'll demonstrate how misguided transformations, naive normalization, and optimistic assumptions let me perform numerous attacks, including persistently poisoning every page on an online newspaper, compromising the administration interface on an internal DoD intelligence website, and disabling Firefox updates globally. Outline Introduction Methodology Unkeyed Query Detection Exploitation - XSS Exploitation - Redirect Cache Parameter Cloaking Akamai Ruby on Rails Unkeyed Method Fat GET Gadgets Key Normalization Key Magic Tricks Encoded XSS Cache Key Injection Relative Path Overwrite Internal Cache Poisoning Tooling Defence Conclusion Introduction Caches save copies of responses to reduce load on the backend system. When a cache receives a HTTP request, it calculates the request's cache key and uses that to identify whether it has the appropriate response already saved, or whether it needs to forward the request on to the back-end. A cache key typically consists of the request method, path, query string, and Host header, plus maybe one or two other headers. In the following request, the values not included in the cache key have been coloured orange.
    [Show full text]
  • Bug Bounty Hunting Essentials
    Bug Bounty Hunting Essentials Quick-paced guide to help white-hat hackers get through bug bounty programs Carlos A. Lozano Shahmeer Amir BIRMINGHAM - MUMBAI Bug Bounty Hunting Essentials Copyright © 2018 Packt Publishing All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embedded in critical articles or reviews. Every effort has been made in the preparation of this book to ensure the accuracy of the information presented. However, the information contained in this book is sold without warranty, either express or implied. Neither the authors, nor Packt Publishing or its dealers and distributors, will be held liable for any damages caused or alleged to have been caused directly or indirectly by this book. Packt Publishing has endeavored to provide trademark information about all of the companies and products mentioned in this book by the appropriate use of capitals. However, Packt Publishing cannot guarantee the accuracy of this information. Commissioning Editor: Gebin George Acquisition Editor: Shrilekha Inani Content Development Editor: Abhishek Jadhav Technical Editor: Mohd Riyan Khan Copy Editor: Safis Editing Project Coordinator: Jagdish Prabhu Proofreader: Safis Editing Indexer: Tejal Daruwale Soni Graphics: Tom Scaria Production Coordinator: Shantanu Zagade First published: November 2018 Production reference: 1301118 Published by Packt Publishing Ltd. Livery Place 35 Livery Street Birmingham B3 2PB, UK. ISBN 978-1-78862-689-7 www.packtpub.com mapt.io Mapt is an online digital library that gives you full access to over 5,000 books and videos, as well as industry leading tools to help you plan your personal development and advance your career.
    [Show full text]
  • Om D-Uppsatser Layout
    Don’t let my Heart bleed! An event study methodology in Heartbleed vulnerability case. Ioannis Lioupras Eleni Manthou External supervisor: Ross Tsagalidis, Swedish Armed Forces Department of informatics IT Managment Master thesis 1-year level, 15 credits SPM 2014.16 Don’t let my Heart bleed! -An event study methodology in Heartbleed vulnerability case. Abstract Due to the rapid evolution of technology, IT software has become incredibly complex. However the human factor still has a very important role on the application of it, since people are responsible to create software. Consequently, software vulnerabilities represent inevitable drawbacks, found to cost extremely large amounts of money to the companies. “Heartbleed” is a recently discovered vulnerability with no prior investigation that answers questions about the impact it has to the companies affected. This paper focuses on the impact of it on the market value of the companies who participated in the vulnerability disclosure process with the help of an event study methodology. Furthermore our analysis investigates if there is a different affection to the value of the company based on the roles those companies had in the process. Our results suggest that the market did not punish the companies about the existence of vulnerability. However the general negative reaction of the market to the incident reflects the importance of a strategic vulnerability disclosure plan for such cases. Keywords: software vulnerability, IT risk management, disclosure policies, event study methodology 1. Introduction Vulnerabilities nowadays are a widely existing and challenging topic. The number of vulnerability disclosure incidents rising continuously the last years. Only in 2013, 6.787 1 vulnerabilities were disclosed which is the highest number of all the previous years according to Internet security threat report (2014).
    [Show full text]
  • Productivity and Patterns of Activity in Bug Bounty Programs: Analysis of Hackerone and Google Vulnerability Research
    See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335092518 Productivity and Patterns of Activity in Bug Bounty Programs: Analysis of HackerOne and Google Vulnerability Research Conference Paper · August 2019 DOI: 10.1145/3339252.3341495 CITATIONS READS 3 966 3 authors, including: Luca Allodi Marco Cremonini Università degli Studi di Trento University of Milan 42 PUBLICATIONS 439 CITATIONS 88 PUBLICATIONS 1,563 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Simulating and analysis of the spreading dynamic of COVID19 View project Epidemic spreading View project All content following this page was uploaded by Marco Cremonini on 05 March 2020. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. Productivity and Patterns of Activity in Bug Bounty Programs: Analysis of HackerOne and Google Vulnerability Research Donatello Luna Luca Allodi Marco Cremonini Tribunale di Busto Arsizio Eindhoven University of Technology University of Milan Busto Arsizio, Varese, Italy Eindhoven, Netherlands Milan, Italy donatello@luna:it l:allodi@tue:nl marco:cremonini@unimi:it ABSTRACT August 26–29, 2019, Canterbury, United Kingdom. ACM, New York, NY, USA, In this work, we considered two well-known bug bounty programs 10 pages. https://doi:org/10:1145/3339252:3341495 - HackerOne and Google Vulnerability Research - with the goal of investigating patterns of activity and comparing productivity of 1 INTRODUCTION security researchers. HackerOne and Google’s programs differ in Bug bounty programs have become a popular initiative in cyber- many ways. HackerOne is one of the largest and most successful security, not just limited to tech companies willing to have a con- bug bounty programs, with heterogeneous membership of security trolled vulnerability discovery program for their software prod- researchers and software producers.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Get Started Into Bug Bounty Complete Beginner Guide ( Part 1 Web Pentesting )
    How to Get Started into Bug Bounty Complete Beginner Guide ( Part 1 Web Pentesting ) Hello guys, after a lot of requests and questions on topics related to Bug Bounty like how to start. I researched a lot for collecting best resources for you Bug bounty. I am starting from basic as prerequisites to tips and labs along with report writing skills. I have also included some of my personally recommend tips. Let’s get started Linkedin ID – Sandeep Kumar www.hackittech.com Hacking is now an accepted profession in which He/She can earn an honest and decent living. Not only are there many pen testing jobs within organizations, providing these “startup” hackers with a place to legitimately fine-tune those skills and abilities , but we also have a new breed of testing –Bug Bounties. 1) What is Bug Bounty ? Let me explain you in a very simple way .. A reward or money offred to a person who finds the bugs (error) or vulnerability in a website or computer program and report it to the company in a responsible way. 2) What you need to know before starting a bug bounty program Scope - *.example.com Focus - payment processing Exclusions - 3rd party sites Organization-wide awareness Environment - prod vs staging Access - shared credentials or self-signup Decide - Private or Public? Learn - Internet, HTTP, TCP/IP , Networking ,Command-line, Linkedin ID – Sandeep Kumar www.hackittech.com Linux , Web technologies, java-script, PHP, java , At least 1 programming language 3) Skills required to be a bug bounty hunter Some of the key areas to focus that are part of OWASP Top 10 which are: o Information gathering o SQL Injection o Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) o Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) o Local & Remote file inclusion o Information Disclosure o Remote Code execution (RCE) After understanding these vulnerabilities you can begin reading others reports ,POCs on the bug bounty platforms like Hackerone to figure out the common testing techniques.
    [Show full text]
  • An Empirical Study of Vulnerability Rewards Programs Matthew Finifter, Devdatta Akhawe, and David Wagner, University of California, Berkeley
    An Empirical Study of Vulnerability Rewards Programs Matthew Finifter, Devdatta Akhawe, and David Wagner, University of California, Berkeley This paper is included in the Proceedings of the 22nd USENIX Security Symposium. August 14–16, 2013 • Washington, D.C., USA ISBN 978-1-931971-03-4 Open access to the Proceedings of the 22nd USENIX Security Symposium is sponsored by USENIX An Empirical Study of Vulnerability Rewards Programs Matthew Finifter, Devdatta Akhawe, and David Wagner University of California, Berkeley finifter, devdatta, daw @cs.berkeley.edu \{ \} Abstract costly zero-day disclosures. Monetary rewards provide an We perform an empirical study to better understand two incentive for security researchers not to sell their research well-known vulnerability rewards programs, or VRPs, results to malicious actors in the underground economy which software vendors use to encourage community or the gray world of vulnerability markets. Third, VRPs participation in finding and responsibly disclosing soft- may make it more difficult for black hats to find vulnera- ware vulnerabilities. The Chrome VRP has cost approx- bilities to exploit. Patching vulnerabilities found through imately $580,000 over 3 years and has resulted in 501 a VRP increases the difficulty and therefore cost for mali- bounties paid for the identification of security vulnerabili- cious actors to find zero-days because the pool of latent ties. The Firefox VRP has cost approximately $570,000 vulnerabilities has been diminished. Additionally, expe- over the last 3 years and has yielded 190 bounties. 28% rience gained from VRPs (and exploit bounties [23,28]) of Chrome’s patched vulnerabilities appearing in secu- can yield improvements to mitigation techniques and help rity advisories over this period, and 24% of Firefox’s, identify other related vulnerabilities and sources of bugs.
    [Show full text]
  • Scaling a Bug Bounty Program
    SCALING A BUG BOUNTY PROGRAM Catalin Curelaru Who am I? var p = new Person(); p.Name = "Catalin Curelaru"; p.Developer = false; // sys eng & networking background p.Tasks = new List<String>() { "Product Security Operations Stuff @ Visma", "CTI, Bug Bounty, DAST, IM/IR", @CatalinCurelaru "340+ Dev teams", "4900+ Devs, 37 Countries", "20-30 Acquisitions/year", "Chapter Leader @ OWASP Timisoara" }; p.Passions = new List<String>() { "cycling", “reading”, “breaking stuff on BB” }; Once upon a time... In a galaxy far far away.. Just kidding! Bug Bounty, what is it? & Bug Bounty - What? ␥ Hackers from around the world ␥ Hackers with specialized skills (Eg. Expert Java hacker) ␥ Continuous Testing the security of the applications for $$$ ␥ Legal Permission to hack ○ (respect policies, rules and do not do harm) ␥ Pay only for vulnerabilities found ○ depending on criticality ␥ Public AND/OR Private Programs ␥ Managed OR NOT Why? ␥ Great and proven way of battle testing security ␥ The strength lies within the number of eyes and expertise ␥ More researchers = More findings = Better security Keep calm and expect us ␥ Tests performed continuously, not only once a year We live in a crowdsourced security era #changehappens The world is changing.. Private vs Public BB Private Public ❖ Invite-only program; ❖ Hundreds of thousands of ❖ A pool of hackers invited hackers ❖ Very good quality of the ❖ Receive submissions from the entire community reports ❖ Self sign in ❖ Disclosure visible only for the invited hackers ❖ Disclosure publicly available ➔ Average
    [Show full text]